One cannot understand philosophy without having a firm grasp of mathematics

> Anno Domini 2016+1
>there are people who don't know pemdas
Maybe serfdom wasn't so bad.

1 Brakets
2.Multiplication and division
3.sums and substractions
All of them from left to right so.
-3/1/3=-9
9-9+1=1

Pemdas is completely arbitrary and not a rigorous mathematical statement. Use parenthesis if you ever want to be explicit. I still can't believe they teach something as usless and arbitrary in math classes.
While correct in principle, the skills you gain with math highy enhance your ability to deal rigorously in different layers of abstraction. It also gives you methods to deconstruct problems to analyze them in many creative and out-of-the-box way. Many things about modern logic are modeled with topology.

Also, you are massive faggot attention whore.

You are right dude, but don't you think your wisdom would be more appreciated at more populated places? I think a lot more people would listen to you at /pol/ than on Veeky Forums

Name mathematical fields other than logic which aid in understanding philosophy.

We should switch to Reverse Polish Notation imo.

mai waifu unrelated

>suggesting a board just as terrible

>there is something "behind" reality

lol

It's the same argument that philosophers make when someone asks for an application of philosophy. Obviously there are not going to be cases where a philosopher needs to solve some equation when dealing with ethics, but math can give you many secondary traits that people dismiss too often. Its generates a different kind of eskeptisism which can be useful with many different questions. This doesn't mean you can use verbose like Lacan to say retatded shit, but you can translate the methods in some sense.

calculus

>While correct in principle, the skills you gain with math highy enhance your ability to deal rigorously in different layers of abstraction. It also gives you methods to deconstruct problems to analyze them in many creative and out-of-the-box way. Many things about modern logic are modeled with topology.

NO.

PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING IS PRIMARILY SYNTHETICAL, AND SECONDARILY ANALYTICAL; MATHEMATICAL THINKING IS ENTIRELY ANALYTICAL.

PHILOSOPHERS CAN ALSO BE MATHEMATICIANS, BUT MATHEMATICIANS CAN NEVER BE PHILOSOPHERS.

>MATHEMATICAL THINKING IS ENTIRELY ANALYTICAL

naw

...

HOW IS IT NOT ENTIRELY ANALYTICAL, ACCORDING TO YOU?

Not really sure what you mean by synthetical and analytical, but mathematics uses boths. Depends on exactly what is your goal and what is the subfield.

>Not really sure what you mean by synthetical and analytical...
>... but mathematics uses boths [SIC].

...

Well I'm fucked then.

Well, either you don't know jack shir about math or we have different interpretations of analytical/synthetical thinking.

>analytic proposition: a proposition whose truth depends solely on the meaning of its terms
>first incompleteness theorem: Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F

jstor.org/stable/2019891

THE MISUNDERSTANDING IS DUE TO YOUR IGNORING WHAT THE WORDS "SYNTHETICAL", AND "ANALYTICAL", MEAN, WHILST USING THEM.

AND?

Thank you.

From what I understand of the terms, I find them that both type of mental processes are used often in math. You, like many other people who haven't done math in a while think that math research is literally proving things from axioms (at least you didn't say it's about making calculations). Mathrmatics has existed long before the rigorous standards where created and even today there is no consensus on what to consider a rigorous standard, so there have been many arguments in math that aren't really completely analytical. Also, many fields and generalisations in math aren't a logical consecuence of the axioms, but definitions that were build upon a period of building an intuition of a particular subject and realizing what are ghe fundamental properties that binds them. Abasttac algebra is a good example of this and I think doing that is a pretty good example of a synthetic process.

To further on abstract algebra. It literally studies objects that are characterized by things we observed to happen in many mathematical structures. For anyone who doesn't have a grasp of more basic math this subject would appear completely impenetrable even though you don't require any previous knowledge. This kind of intuition is not really analythical.

17

Durch

9-3:(1/3)+1=
=9-3*3+1=
=9-9+1=
=0+1=
=1

So Wittgenstein couldn't understand philosophy? Alright

One.

Good lord guys, it's 9

There are "superior" realities that are blocked to ones of an inferior state, so to speak.

It's 1, you tards

-1/12

If you think this means 9 - (3/(1/3)) + 1 the answer is 1

If you think this means ((9 - 3)/(1/3)) +1 the answer is 19

If you think this means 9 - (3/(1/3 + 1)) the answer is 6(3/4)

This whole problem exists solely because of ambiguity. If this was actually laid out properly, this wouldn't even be debated.

Honestly, pic related should permanently banned because it's ruining basic mathematical discourse.

You're fucking retarded, m8.

you again

What's you're answer then?

9.01

To be fair on all the tards, that picture has some terrible fucking kerning and general formatting.

Obviously 16 though.

There are no parenthesis to denote what portions are to be quantified, and so sticking to order of operations it will equal 1.

And what order of operations did you decide to use?

>We should switch to Reverse Polish Notation imo.

Why not Polish notation?

Good question. I'd say he probably used the one that's ubiquitous, that people default to in every field and that's taught to almost everyone in grade school, regardless of country.

None of y'all are impressing anybody by pointing out that the order of operations is an arbitrary convention. EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS IT'S A CONVENTION. You're not clever.

Unless stated otherwise, or in fairly specialized contexts, it's assumed that an expression will follow the standard order of operations.

It's not as ubiquitous as you think it is if different people are consistently coming up with different answers.

That's not because they're using a different order of operations. Even in fields where occasionally you end up using a different one (e.g. strictly left to right) for whatever reason, the standard one remains ... well, standard.

When people get it wrong it's because they were incorrectly taught or because they've forgotten, both of which are very common.

Also, people have been posting images like this on here and also on Facebook and shit for more than 10 years, and everybody knows it's a great way to get people yelling at each other and calling each other stupid, so you have to bear in mind that 1/2 of the "wrong" answers in a thread like this are gonna be bait.

>A regular user of this website has made another post...

Wow...

>EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS IT'S CONVENTION.
If you actually looked at the facebook comments when someone posta this stupid shit, you will find out that few people actually believe that. Also in all my years in STEM there wasn't a time a recall that I had to remember the order of operations because everyone knows it's better to just leave shit clear.

>PHILOSOPHY IS CONCERNED WITH THE TRUTH BEYOND REALITY
A more idiotic reply could not be caps-locked. Not even by (You).

PEMDAS
E
M
D
A
S

The answer is 1.

>A cancerous attention whore tripfag has made another post.

>not spotting sarcasm
Maybe it's time to try interacting with people in real life?

To be fair that picture is a hoax photoshop.

3 divided by 1/3 = 3 x 3 = 9

so it becomes 9 - (9) +1 = 1

the irony behind this post is that you prove the OP right

the implication behind the OP is that logic is so firmly explored and refined in mathematics that it is impossible to claim to understand philisophy or think philosophically if you cannot express your understanding of logic through extremely simple mathematics

you being unable to understand this implication proves that you are shit at logic. Your unwillingness to attempt the math problem implies that you are probably bad at math. By being bad at logic and math, you provide evidence that OP is correct by being bad at philosphy and math at the same time because of your inability to think logically

i cant :(

what a shitty slide

the Old way (PEMDAS) gives you 16 too

>P
2*2 = 4
so then you have 20 / 5 * 4

you perform multiplication and division at the same step and in sequential order, so it's (20/5) * 4 = 4*4 = 16

Its 1

It's -1

Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand PEMDAS, and is probably American too.

what does this have to do with history

Parenthesis and exponents
>none, move on
Multiplacation and division
>3/(1/3) = 3*3 = 9, move on
Addition and subtraction
>work left to right, 9-9=0, 0+1=1
Answer is 1

>and in sequential order
No.

Polish notation is objectively worse than RPN.

yes you moron

when you have
>20 / 5 * 4

which do you do first? multiplication or division? you have to pick one. You cannot do them at the same time.

(20/5)*4 = 16
20/(5*4) = 1

You have to pick one because they are different answers, so you do them in sequential order because that's what makes sense if you aren't retarded
nice b8

go to bed shia

>You have to pick one because they are different answers, so you do them in sequential order because that's what makes sense if you aren't retarded
Or you don't write ambiguous expressions.

I completely agree

but with the present notation you have to follow sequentially. The other way doesn't make sense at all.

Your assertion is correct however Mathematics is a discipline within the umbrella term of Philosophy, that is, if you consider "natural philosophy" to by Philosophy.
This can be demonstrated in the idea that PEMDAS is a rule meant to govern mathematical procedure in the context of mathematical symbols, but PEMDAS isn't a part of some sort of 'natural' mathematical axiom, it is simply a rule for consistency and formatting, not a law.

1

9-3:1/3+1
9-(3:1/3)+1
9-(3*3)+1
9-9+1
0+1
1

is "1/3" represent "1/3" or "1 divided by 3". I realize they have the same value, but its kind of important when we're talking about the succession of terms...

The truth is that Mathematics is concerned only with the truth behind mathematics.

The whole point of math is building on a few statements you believe to be true without any doubt, and finding other true statements that are a result of those statements being assumed to be true.

the statement is the opposite though, you can't do mathematics without philosophy, not the other way around.

>you can't do mathematics without philosophy, not the other way around
both statements are true

additive and subtraction language and rhetoric are not [necessarily] mathematics. so no, philosophy comes first